General Discussion

Here's what he said:

In December 2024, I was personally involved in an NSA-authorized forensic audit of the 2024 election.
https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/ex-cia-whistleblower-the-nsa-audited

Or maybe it's just because I'm an experienced writer of advertising copy and also legal documents. Do you not see what he did?

To me it's obvious. This is very careful wording. It does not say the NSA did the audit, so therefore "there is no NSA audit" means you passed on a careful, critical reading. Regardless of whether the NSA did it or another entity did it, it would still be referred to as an NSA audit or an NSA-authorized audit.

The NSA authorized it. That doesn't mean they did it. It could mean they commissioned it.

How they would do that is another story which you can start a thread on if you wish, but it's not to the point for my purposes, so I won't belabor it.

-----------------

Additional comment, not related to your post but relevant to my point that it is worded very carefully (or even stealthily) if you wish to impugn motive:

He said he was "personally involved." That doesn't mean he was an employee of the CIA at the time, which he was not. I believe I read where his employment with them ended in 2022. Personally involved could mean he referred the people who actually did the audit. That is just an example, because "personally involved" has very broad coverage.
------------------

So to summarize, you threw out an accusation which did not involve a careful reading. There is somethng to be gleaned from a careful reading of this statement, especially when it is combined with his other work, which takes substantial time to review. I have just glanced over it and am unwilling to make an opinion on it until I read more carefully.